can you rebuttal this @K9Otaku
The story of Jesus is a fiction that appeared after the first Jewish-Roman war (in the 70s AD) in order to flesh out Paul's earlier take on the Messiah (i.e. "Christ" in Greek), to make it more palatable to a wider audience, and to make sense of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple during the War (see Chapter 9 of the book). The virgin birth is just a pretty standard Middle-Eastern cultural motif that the Gospel writer used to give credence to the special status of their main character.
I am not saying that the Gospel writers were cynical, mind you. They all wrote outside of Judea at a time when no Jew could go there anymore and when there were plenty of Jewish refugees all over the Eastern Mediterranean. There had been so much destruction and death during the war that no one clearly remembered what had happened there before it. The story got pierced together from testimonies of people who probably had visions, like Paul, or dreams, etc. Most probably confused messiah stories from the time of Paul, with events that had happened later. This is how a new religion takes shape.
One interesting fact is that the virgin birth is not mentioned in Mark, which is the earliest Gospel. It got tacked on later and first appears in Matthew.
The story that
@CrackingYs mentions is an anti-Christian Jewish slander that appears in the Talmud, where Jesus is called "Jesus ben Pantera" (son of Pantera). "Pantera" in the story, is supposed to be a Roman centurion. Of course, the story is meaningless because Jesus was never a real person in the first place.
It is funny to see a rabid anti semite like
@CrackingYs quoting the Talmud (probably unknowingly).